Sunday, 10 November 2013

Blogs eh!? What to do with them. Some people write seriously investigative and revealing articles that are interesting enough to read and you feel you have learnt something at the end of it. Me - I sometimes write interesting stuff but more often than not it is a ramble or a tirade of abuse or a surreal rampage but, to me, some are worth reading and some are not. I can never tell which are the best until later.

HOWEVER - This time I have a few important gems to share.

Here is the Max Keiser Report (episode 521) for 8 November 2013. It is worth a watch.
One nice quote from Max "Gold, silver and bitcoin are, to the banksters, what crucifixes and garlic are to vampires."

And on the subject of democracy and the false presentation of reality via our media networks he mentioned the Million Mask March saying "Just this week we had the 'Million Masked March' which was replicated all over the world. Thousands of people on the streets. It wasn't on the BBC which is the main media outlet in this country. It wasn't on their main story for their main network. It wasn't even on their local London news. It wasn't covered at all."

He was also talking to Zac Goldsmith, a (Conservative - eek) Member of Parliament for Richmond Park who, on the subject of the 'Economics of Extinction' said "We had evidence in parliament the other day from a Chinese lady who said that there are investment companies, now, who hoard Rhino horns for exactly the same reasons, and there are people who suspect them for being behind some of the killings we seen because, obviously, wipe out the rhino in the wild, their stock is worth an absolute fortune."

Thursday, 7 November 2013

I just love the internet. I am beginning to love it more and more all the time. In the very early days I believed it was a good thing. I saw its potential for being Stage 2 of the printing press. Given that the printing press gave more people more access to more information and the results seemed productive for the health and well being of more people my guess was that the internet would have a similarly profound effect. So far I am not disappointed.

Many people think the internet is dangerous. Children are spending all their time playing games on the internet. Society is breaking down because of the internet. Pornography is on the rampage because of the internet. Terrorism flourishes because of the internet. People no longer know what to believe because of the internet. International espionage and cyber warfare are flourishing. Identity theft, financial scams, cyber bullying, information overload, and monetizing of the mindless masses by malicious multinational megaliths.

In the early days of financial transaction on the internet many people wouldn't buy things over the internet because they were afraid it was not secure. They were afraid someone could just take their money and never supply the goods. It seemed impersonal and therefore less secure. There were many cases of internet theft and deception. A web site could simply get your card details and then do stuff like use your details to buy stuff. Little did most people realise that this was being done regularly in the physical world. You gave your card to the retailer who ran it through the machine and kept a copy for their records. Those copies were sometimes used illegally by criminals. And research indicated that the percentage rate of fraud on the internet was one tenth of that in the physical world. Internet relationships are also believed to be risky but research indicates that the percentage success rate is far higher than in the real world. There is lots of misinformation on the internet but I would estimate there is more misinformation available through conventional media.

And here is an example of something only available to me in the internet age which I am so glad has some air time (so to speak).

Once upon a time there was a deputy mayor who wanted to chop off the heads of little children. No - it was not Herod (he was a king, not a mayor) that bloke who ordered the death of newborns for fear of a prophesy that one of them may usurp his throne. Neither was it that God (he was a God, not a mayor) who in the Book of Exodus allegedly said "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn in Egypt will die..." all because he wanted to upset the Pharaoh. No, it was as a British Conservative Party member called Owen Lister. He "allegedly" said of disabled children "I would guillotine them." He went on to elucidate saying "These are children you can't educate. It's merely a matter of caring for them until they die." and "The only difference between a terminally ill patient and a severely handicapped child is time." (A reference: TORY DEPUTY MAYOR: THE BEST THING FOR DISABLED CHILDREN IS THE GUILLOTINE)

Well this is shocking enough and if you have doubts about its authenticity then do a "Google" search with the words "deputy mayor owen lister".

Then the good person Kanjin Tor popped this picture on his Facebook timeline.

Which draws attention to the sinister policies of the government to kill off the disabled population of the UK. I will make no apology here for accusing the government of such a policy nor will I attempt to make it more palatable to the frightened somnambulists who are still hanging on to the excuse that this gaggle of suited politicians couldn't possibly do such a thing in this day and age. It is an excuse to imagine that it was nasty men in jackboots who did malicious and evil things. In their time the Nazis were appealing to the preferred respectable image. So is David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith and Grant Shapps and George Osborne and Theresa May and Vince Cable and Michael Gove and Chris Grayling and the list goes on but these are just a few that spring to mind. They wouldn't get away with it if they wore Charlie Chaplin moustaches and swastikas. They are getting away with it by pretending to be caring. But it is clearly a pretence because they continue with draconian policies that any numbskull can see through.

And I recalled stuff that I wrote about on a blog entitled Genetic manipulation and included a Nazi Party poster which was significantly milder that Owen Lister's remarks:

Translation: "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read 'New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."

It is a chilling realisation that the Conservative Party are on the same genocidal mission that has happened so often in history. It is a chilling realisation that there is NO DIFFERENCE between any of the electable Parties at present. Are we going to stop it this time? So, due to the internet, we get the chance to see what is really going on... So I love the internet; Because it gives us a chance. Whether people will take that chance is another matter. I happen to believe they will in spite of the apparent scale of mindless somnambulism out there.

Monday, 14 October 2013

I watched the video below and my eyes nearly popped out of my head. NxtGenUK has a giant talent for poetry and facts as well as an astute political awareness. This is very important.

So I was impressed - and it got me to thinking how I consider these policies of the UK government to be close to genocide, so I looked up 'genocides in history' on Wikipedia. It sent shivers down my spine. Clearly I have to do some more research but for now this is part of the opening paragraph on Wikipedia:

It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1948 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the groups conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

UK Children Services confiscated over 10,000 children in 2010 from their parents (and it seems the number per annum is increasing). More than 10,600 people died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work' in the first 11 months of the Atos test introduced by the DWP (that is about 12,000 per annum and probably rising). We know people are committing suicide because of the insane and ruthless welfare cuts. Legal aid has been slashed. People are forced to work for their benefits putting other people out of work and on benefits. It is expected that the deaths due to fuel poverty will rise yet again this year. Approaching half a million people use foodbanks and the Red Cross has launched an emergency food parcel program for the UK.

It is clear that significant aspects of genocide are occurring. There is no doubt that a 'national' group, the poor, is being targeted (the poor include disabled, sick, elderly, and unemployed). It is clear that they are being destroyed in part. It is clear the welfare reforms are causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. It is clear that the policies are inflicting conditions of life which are bringing about physical destruction in part. And there is frightening evidence of forcibly transferring children to another group.

Discussions about charging IDS and other members of this government with genocide have stalled on a number of accounts including 'intent'. A valid question would be: if it is not 'intentional' is there some serious suggestion that it is 'accidental'? IDS has lied about the death toll figures. Those figures were mysteriously removed from the government web site but reappeared when a storm blew up. His department has repeatedly, and illegally, refused to respond to FOI requests about the death toll. The DWP have stated that they are no longer counting the death toll after Atos examinations. Possibly a majority of the UK population 'know' this is an assault on the poor. I say that because there are those who clearly see it that way and then there is the 'negative' press 'justifying' austerity by denigrating the target (the poor, the sick, the mentally ill, the elderly, the disabled etc). By denigrating the target it is an implicit acknowledgement of the assault because the suggestion is 'they deserve it'. There is quite a large consensus that what is happening is a crime; The problem is prosecuting the government.

Is this UK government indulging in the international crime of genocide?

Saturday, 12 October 2013

This is just a meander. Why? Because there are too many issues taking up my time which are important but there is no time to do them justice. But then this seems to be how it is meant to work. And the associated image has no relevance to the text except that politicians are wallies.

I was listening to the radio this morning and although I usually like to check my references, get my facts right and generally make sure the writing is correct and that the references are supplied and can be validated I am not going to do this on this occasion because the message is more important than the medium. The medium, in this case, being the examples which illustrate the point. The point being that utter bullshit is being swallowed whole by the British public on a daily basis.

So I am listening to the radio hoping to get back to sleep. It is the Money Program, or something similar, and the gentleman presenting the program has a droning sort of voice ideal for somnambulising me. But he is talking about John Lewis and some situation where they have been underpaying their workers. Oh the details! The wonderful details. The long and the short of the story is that JL have 'discovered' that they have been underpaying workers due to complex European regulations relating to holiday pay and how it is worked out. Having acknowledged that they have been underpaying folk they have agreed to put the situation right and to back pay all the underpayments.

But there is a catch! They are only going to do that for the people who could cause them a problem if they don't. People who have left the company and are rightly owed some money WILL NOT get what they contractually deserve. It is a contract and it is legal. John Lewis OWE them the money. But, and this is the bit that causes the problem for me - NOTE - I didn't say it WAS the problem for me and there is a reason for this; It is the issue that causes the problem. 'It', the 'bit' or the 'issue' is that due to recent changes in the law it will no longer be economically viable for people to make a claim against John Lewis. The law has recently changed such that if you want to claim justice, if you want a tribunal to ascertain if, or that, JL owe you the money you have to pay a non refundable £400 for the privilege. Of course you will need a lawyer, or a degree in law (costing thousands of pounds borrowed from ... from who exactly? Currently it is the government that 'lends' money for education but that is just step-politics until you get either used to it or dependent at which point they will 'privatise' the loan system with the banal suggestion that it is to make it more competitive and ultimately cheaper to the customer. But there is no competition when the government are 'providing' loans at no profit to 'the government' because 'the government' is the system by which we 'govern' 'us'. Those jerks in suits acting like spoilt toffs are the people representing us in the 'house of discussion' - You know The House of Parliament. There is no 'government' which is them and not us. They cannot take money from us because they are us. They can't make a profit from us. If they could they would no longer be representing us. But all that is too much for the ignorant population to understand so they carry on with their irrational junk justifications for whatever it is they want to do next to get their rocks off at our expense.)

This is how it turns into a rant. Getting back to the point: The politicians have used the mask of austerity to claim that legal aid is a drain on the hard working people of this country. (Note the divisive and prejudicial verbiage "hard working".) But what they have really done is only made 'expensive', or large sums, affordable for justice. To people with money this seems to appear to be like it not being worth stopping your Lamborghini in the street to get out and bend over to pick up a 20p piece. I think all of us could understand the rational of that. But what the politicians seem to deliberately ignore and the ignorant public don't notice is that very few people have Lamborghinis . It is true that it is not worth stopping your Lamborghini for 20p. It probably costs that in petrol just to stop and start the car. But for poor people who only have a pound, when they drop 20p they have to stop and pick it up. After all it is 20% of what they have. 20% of the Lamborghini alone (not counting the mansion you have to have first and the garage with electric doors and the insurance and the unearned income) would be £40,000. Why do the poor people who are so dumb as to fall for the fake sycophantic bullshit ... I can't put it into a simple sentence.

I am going to get legitimately offensive here. The FUCKING STUPID MORONS who are working seem to willingly swallow the spunk produced by their abusers because ... because ... because WHY? Because they are being favoured by the abusers because they comply with the abuse. They don't want to be the 'poor' people being killed off. This is profound cultural Stockholm Syndrome. They shave their heads, call themselves skinheads or BNP or EDL or UKIP and ponce around arrogantly as if they are 'hard working' people denigrating the poor and licking up to (literally in many cases) the bullies. It is simply not reasonable to withdraw legal aid for 'small' cases' If large corporations are derelict in their responsibilities and a poor person wants justice they simply MUST be held responsible. If one supposes that there would be so many illegitimate small claims that the poor lucrative business would go bankrupt defending itself against these claims than one is not living in the real world. But there's the rub - they are not living in the REAL world. Interestingly they are living in the PARANOID world. They don't think they are because they project that attribute onto people they are abusing and they believe that the people beneath them would steal form them given half the chance. They believe that the people they are 'holding down' would abuse them. Why would a person who had been brought up in a secure and supportive family situation where they could assume they were valuable and loved act in such a prejudicial and frightened way? It is simple - they have been abused as children. Research can, and does, illustrate this no end of times. There are acres of literature about this. But it doesn't need the research, it only requires rational logical thought about the evidence in front of you. But people are frightened out of doing that at school. I guess it does get complicated to explain it. John Lennon is a good starting point. Check out his life story - his life of abuse and how it turned him into an abuser. Check out how he could see something was wrong and paid attention to it. Instead of being abusive he tried to figure out how and why. Then go check out Arthur Janov, the Californian psychotherapist, counsellor bloke who is famous for the misnamed "Primal Scream Therapy" of the 1960s and read his books like "Prisoners of Pain" and "The biology of Love". The research has been done. This is not just a fancy idea. But I guess to many it is like trying to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity and trying to explain spacetime. You don't even have to understand it to believe that GPS wouldn't work without the understanding. You can ascertain that yourself and the people who do know do know. So why are we so vulnerable to this abusive culture that the general population continue to support the abusers for fear of something worse. The only 'worse' threat is coming from them.

So back to the Money Program: Why do people let the fact that people who are no longer employed by John Lewis cannot get justice simply slip by? In my opinion the whole bloody country should stop until John Lewis pays them. John Lewis - well the executives enacting this crime - should be jailed if they don't sort it out within 24 hours. Then, of course, the politicians who allowed the reduction in legal aid should have all their assets confiscated and lose their jobs since they cannot be trusted. Then the people who instigated the injustice, the illegitimate legislation, should simply have everything confiscated and be thrown into jail. They will be given the option of a fair trial if they can 'earn' (by being 'hard working' folk) the lawyers' fees and the judges' fees and the rental costs of the court houses from within their prison cells. What? That is impossible and so not fair - GOSH! Pardon me for not noticing!

And there were numerous other things I wanted to mention but that will just have to wait.

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

I am no journalist. There are many reasons for this but the one I am referring to (or to be correct
'the one to which I am referring') is that I can't be bothered to do the research. It's not because I am lazy but rather that the I have researched a number of subjects and it has turned out to be a rather pointless exercise. Specifically I am talking about researching a subject to refute a banal or erroneous claim by someone else. The temptation is to explain what is wrong but the point turns out to be that they knew they were wrong and don't give a shit. So why did I ever work at proving it?

The Sun has printed a headline "1,200 killed by mental patients" and the subtext "Shock 10-year toll exposes care crisis" It will create a great scandal. People will, quite reasonably, get very angry and upset by this headline. I am fully aware of the social implications of this kind of banal, cruel, scare-mongering, divisive sensationalism. It is disgusting and it is dangerous. It is harmful to a lot of innocent people. It is pandering to the ignorant and to the politically right wing. It is intellectually pathetic.

Incidentally my headline "7 million Sun readers are full of shit" is more correct than the Sun's scandalous headline because it is not even dependent upon collected figures or spurious definitions. It is also slightly less misleading. The fact remains that every Sun reader is full of shit because we all are.

But I thought about this and currently, according to the World Health Organisation, we have something more than 20% of our population with mental health problems. If it is known you have a mental health problem then presumably you can be described as a 'mental health patient'. That means that approximately 12,000,000 (12 million if you are a Sun reader because they don't do lots of zeros) people are mental patients. Given that in 2011/2012 there were 640 murders in the UK, that equates to a rough average of 6,400 in ten years. Take the 1,200 mental patient murders off that and it leaves 5,200 murders by normal people (Do you get jokes?). So if 80% of the population killed approximately 80% of the murder victims I am left wondering what the intention of the headline could possibly be except to denigrate mental health patients.

BUT... whilst thinking about this I was moved to compare Ian Duncan Smith's death toll with this almost meaningless claim by the Sun. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), headed up by the now infamous criminal IDS, has figures indicating that, in the first 11 months of the new welfare reform tests, more than 10,600 people died within six weeks of being declared 'fit for work' by their henchmen at Atos. Some people regard this as murder. I do too. In fact I regard it as genocide but that's another story. Taking the view that the inhumane oppressive policies enacted by the DWP are causing these deaths (which is not unreasonable but I am not going to spend three weeks doing the research, collecting the figures and proving this point - which is why I am not a journalist) this amounts to approximately 120,000 killed over a 10 year period. So although these figures are not included in the one to one murder statistics they amount to 100 times more killing than the Sun wishes to claim is caused by mental patients.

Does this suggest that Iain Duncan Smith is 100 times more mentally ill than the average mental patient in the UK?

Saturday, 5 October 2013

"Atos Nazis are working the sick to death" says the world’s longest surviving kidney dialysis patients. What he actually said was "I’d liken this to what the Nazis did, working the disabled and the sick until they dropped dead and were no longer a burden."

Paul Mickleburgh is 53 years old and has been on dialysis since he was 19. He managed to work for about 15 years as a technician in spite of having four kidney transplants. He has survived 14 heart attacks and he is destined to stay on dialysis because his body is unlikely to survive another attempt at a transplant.

David Cameron said, at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester this week, "I want to thank the most determined champion for social justice this party has ever had: Iain Duncan Smith. Iain understands that this isn't about fixing systems, it's about saving lives."

First of all this country has a long standing and respected tradition of good education and a good medical profession. Highly paid doctors are legally obliged to correctly assess patients ability to work. They are the experts. So they say someone is not fit to work and this Tory government pays a foreign conglomerate Information Technology company called Atos(with a registered trading name Atos Healthcare) to employ unskilled people to tick boxes with targets to deem a certain proportion of sick people 'fit for work'. Excuse me Mr Cameron why waste all that money on the doctors? They could be usefully employed clearing up litter - after all it is a health issue.

There seems to be this wilful denial of any problem by making nice sounding statements about good intentions. Even if their intentions were good (which they are patently not) then looking at the facts would soon disabuse them of their delusion. Some people interpret this behaviour as deliberately malicious and evil. I think it is a bit more Freudian than that. I believe these people have been seriously abused in their childhoods. They have been brought up by dysfunctional toxic parents who have not only abused their children at home but in many cases have sent them to abusive institutions like Eton. By the time these little souls leave the education system they are perfectly sausage shaped (like Jimmy Savile's cigars) and they prance around like upper class twits reminiscent of Lord Percy Percy or Prince George(The Prince Regent) from Blackadder. They clearly possess the same level of intellectual ability - NONE.

But the devastating thing about abuse is it perverts perception. Although I wouldn't credit any of these power seeking individuals in the Tory Party with seriously humanitarian or even slightly benign motives they probably think of themselves as good. Not necessarily very good but good. This seems to be the most sinister aspect of all. If they see themselves as good, how could they ever comprehend the severity of the crimes they are committing? Freud realised that people do believe their own interpretation of the world and that to understand behaviour that appears contradictory or perverse one has to 'believe' the patient. It is not a question of taking on their projected beliefs but it is necessary to believe that they are accurately describing the world they inhabit. Of course it is far more complex because people deceive too, but they deceive for a reason and that has to be understood.

One particular trait I see very often is that these abusers make statements which have double meanings. I don't credit them with the wit to be doing this consciously - when they do it consciously it is pathetically transparent - but their subconscious is trying to represent reality behind the perversion of the abused consciousness. So statements like Cameron's above contain a truth but perhaps not the one you would be expecting a rational sentient being to make. So to a relatively human person it is galling but to another victim of abuse it can sound like the benign statement it is masquerading as.

What Cameron was quite really saying was that IDS is championing 'social justice' (meaning being strong enough to meting out 'justice' [a perverted interpretation of justice as punishment - because that's what they experienced as children] to the lazy wasters that are the sick and the poor). He then goes on to blatantly tell the truth "this isn't about fixing systems" (the stark meaning of that is frightening) and goes on to say "it's about saving lives". Of course his brain is referring to his own life and those of the people like him whilst his conscious mind is allowed to maintain the delusion that they care about anybody else. Idiots like Tories will all clap and think he is wanting to save people's lives in spite of the fact that their emotional condition is hating the poor. It is allowing them to massage their egos. It especially allows IDS to believe God loves him because he 'cares' about people in spite of the fact that he doesn't.

If this is all sounding a little complex, contradictory, and bizarre then I would suggest it is a good description of what is going on.

I profoundly hate these hypocritical, sanctimonious, self satisfied do-gooders who interfere with other people's lives in the pretence of caring but the evidence is clear that it is they who benefit at other people's expense. Jesus rather despised these people too and it is ironic that they can even pervert that. But be assured Mr Duncan Smith (self proclaimed Roman Catholic), if there were a God you would be up shit creek you piece of sugar coated faecal matter. You are, tragically, simply a dead man walking or more poetically a twitching cadaver.

I ask myself "Why can't my blog posts be impartial and objective?" and the answer comes back "But they are!"

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Of course there are some cases where certain information is usefully hidden from some particular audience for some particular purpose. But philosophically censorship is wrong.

Most people who support (as opposed to promote) censorship are thinking of cases such as protecting young innocents from obscene pornographic material. That cannot really be described as censorship. It is quite reasonable to protect people you care about from damaging circumstances including the shocking and potentially harmful effects of certain visual or literary material. There are perfectly serviceable solutions to this problem. There are legal frameworks that make rape, underage sex or child abuse illegal. It follows that if someone puts images of acts of paedophilia on the internet it is already illegal and the powers that be are well within their rights to prevent this happening. But this is enacting the law - not censorship. The law can deal with preventing illegal material being promulgated.

For entities like schools, parents or clubs who want, for whatever reason, to limit access to material they are perfectly at liberty to select the material they wish to make available to their charges or members. There is even money to be made selling various filters and there are plenty of those already available.

It is not censorship for a school to not purchase obscene pornography for its library. The nine o'clock watershed is not fairly described as 'censorship'. There is plenty of scope for selecting what is appropriate in any particular circumstance.

People who promote censorship are trying to control what other people think. There are two issues of importance here. One is that nature is as it is and humanity will evolve the way it evolves. Reality is what it is and truth is the awareness of reality. Censorship is an attempt by one individual or group to falsely represent reality to another individual or group. This is clearly contradictory to reality. The other issue is that of freedom. If we support the autonomous freedom of individuals then censorship is contradictory to that belief.

Censorship is generally used as a tool of control by an authority over a subjugated population. Censorship is a generalised term to allow arbitrary control of information. To enact laws of censorship is to give impunity to a controlling influence to enact its power over others.

If certain things are deemed by the collective group to be unacceptable then they can be described and made specifically illegal by mutual consent. But censorship is an umbrella term which hands unlimited control to the ruling authority. This is entirely against freedom and is immoral and ultimately evil. It may be that reality is painful but 'protecting' people from the pain of reality has never worked in the long run. All it achieves is to make some people more comfortable in the short term at the expense of other people in the long term.

On Saturday 28 September 2013 there was a gathering outside the Houses of Parliament. It was, in fact, a ceremony of remembrance led by the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral. It was organised by 10,000 Cuts & Counting ( #10Kcuts ). It was a profoundly important event and it happened in Parliament Square in the centre of London. BUT... if you watch the BBC news, listen to the BBC radio or read any of the main stream UK press you wouldn't know it had happened. The country was not supposed to know! How could this event go unreported? It was a remembrance service for the 10,600 people who died within 6 weeks of being put through the Atos Work Capability Assessment in just the first 10 months of it being imposed on the sick and disabled in the UK. (GOV.UK: Incapacity Benefits: Deaths of recipients) These figures are for a period between January and November 2011 and there have been two more years of unrecorded death and destruction since then. The situation is not only devastating but very disturbing. The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for these circumstances and have, on all accounts, stopped recording the related deaths. They are also, unbelievably, refusing to act legally according to statutory obligations to provide information they do have through FOI (Freedom of Information) requests, falsely claiming these requests are vexatious and therefore they do not have to respond. (see: Vox Political: Will the DWP do ANYTHING to avoid revealing the true extent of the Atos deaths?)

This gathering included many disabled activists, Occupy, Mohammed Ansar, Michael Meacher MP, John McDonnell MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP an others. The grass area was strewn with 10,000 white flowers representing 10,000 of the severely abused victims of this policy. The fact that this event was so significant, in such a significant place, attended by significant people but was NOT REPORTED by main stream media is indicative of the power of the sinister forces at work in the UK at the moment. It is almost beyond belief that the government, or rather the controlling influence behind the government, has such malevolent power to enact such a news blackout in this day and age. If you have any doubts about the devastating effects of this policy I personally know three people whose lives have been profoundly damaged by the offensive, threatening and degrading abuse of Atos and the DWP system.

And if you have any doubts about the severity of the propaganda machine in action today I suggest you think again because the Conservative Party Conference has had hours of news time devoted to it but many people are unaware of the 50,000 protestors who demonstrated against the government outside the conference hall on Sunday 29 September 2013. This was stunningly under-reported by the BBC and the main stream media. A protest of 50,000 people in Manchester NOT REPORTED! Unbelievable - until you understand how sinister this government has become. Many people in the UK remained unaware of one of the biggest protests ever witnessed in Manchester!

Here are some references to the two events that the UK media was presumably banned from reporting.

10,000 Cuts & Counting references:

This is a truly compassionate and disturbing video. Watch it, think about it. Then pass it on and spread the news before it is too late. And remember what Martin Niemöller said:
...they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Monday, 30 September 2013

I have to comment on this letter because it is doing the rounds on FuckBase and it is a piece of disturbing insanity. It is sentimental and sounds really nice. That is obvious, if it didn't appeal it wouldn't be doing the rounds, but there are one or two serious problems. Here is the letter for your delectation.

LETTER FROM A MOTHER TO A DAUGHTER:

"My dear girl, the day you see I’m getting old, I ask you to please be patient, but most of all, try to understand what I’m going through.

If when we talk, I repeat the same thing a thousand times, don’t interrupt to say: “You said the same thing a minute ago”... Just listen, please. Try to remember the times when you were little and I would read the same story night after night until you would fall asleep.

When I don’t want to take a bath, don’t be mad and don’t embarrass me. Remember when I had to run after you making excuses and trying to get you to take a shower when you were just a girl?

When you see how ignorant I am when it comes to new technology, give me the time to learn and don’t look at me that way... remember, honey, I patiently taught you how to do many things like eating appropriately, getting dressed, combing your hair and dealing with life’s issues every day... the day you see I’m getting old, I ask you to please be patient, but most of all, try to understand what I’m going through.

If I occasionally lose track of what we’re talking about, give me the time to remember, and if I can’t, don’t be nervous, impatient or arrogant. Just know in your heart that the most important thing for me is to be with you.

And when my old, tired legs don’t let me move as quickly as before, give me your hand the same way that I offered mine to you when you first walked.

When those days come, don’t feel sad... just be with me, and understand me while I get to the end of my life with love.

I’ll cherish and thank you for the gift of time and joy we shared. With a big smile and the huge love I’ve always had for you, I just want to say, I love you... my darling daughter."

- Unknown,

If you think there is anything reasonable about this letter perhaps you will discover something about psychology by reading the following observations and criticism. If you think this letter is appalling but can't explain why then the following might help. If you think it's appalling and know why, the following may be interesting and may offer support to your relatively rare perception.

Why is a mother asking, almost begging, a daughter to be patient and understand her getting old? Why is the mother asking for understanding from a daughter who she clearly doesn't understand except in prejudicial anticipation of her being impatient and non-understanding? Why would you ask someone to be patient except that you were expecting them not to be?

One thing we know about children is that they learn from example. It is well understood in psychology that telling children what to do teaches them how to tell people what to do. Bullying begets bullying. Love begets love. The mother quite clearly has been impatient and non-understanding and feels anxious and a need to ask her daughter not to be like that.

If there were any doubt about that perception of the meaning of these words the letter goes on to confirm it. The second paragraph makes an obvious and glaring mistake, or rather reveals the hidden truth. To paraphrase it says "If I repeat myself don't criticise..." and one expects it to say "remember when you were young I didn't criticise you when you repeated yourself" but in fact it doesn't say that it says "remember when I kept repeating things when you were young." It is laughably a little worse "... until you were so bored you fell asleep!" This is a tragic letter and already the mother is pleading with the daughter "Please don't treat me like I treated you."

"When I don't want to take a bath, don't be mad and don't embarrass me." This is really getting bad! Why would anyone get angry and embarrass someone for not having a bath? Of course if you could answer that then you probably know - it's because that is their own attitude to themselves and there is only one place that came from and that is their childhood. It is clearly the expectation and suggests almost conclusively that it has always been the attitude of the writer and therefore the way she treated her daughter. But like the second paragraph this one makes explicit that the mother didn't treat the daughter the way she now wants to be treated. The allusion is to the equation "Don't hassle me I didn't hassle you." and in the most subtle way the wording is altered to confuse the brain into assuming that is what is being said. But revisit the actual words and what it says (paraphrased for illustration) is "Don't hassle me like I hassled you." What it says (verbatim) is "don’t be mad and don’t embarrass me. Remember when I had to run after you making excuses and trying to get you to take a shower". Like a lot of abuse the abuser thinks it is fun and when they retell the story it sounds like fun. There is complex trickery going on here. The ambivalence is allowing for the interpretation that the 'chasing' (running after) and 'deception' (excuses)' was fun. It is ambivalent because these things can be fun. But clearly the writer is concerned that the child will not be 'fun' and tries to persuade them that they had 'fun' when she was little. Why? Why would you need to 'remind' your daughter that you had fun? Do you think she forgot?

The next chunk is a total disaster. A lot could be said but the phrase "don't look at me that way" indicates a lot. First of all the letter was talking to the daughter about a possible future circumstance and now refers to a current event. Of course that 'current event' is in the mind of the writer but it is clearly being experienced in the mind of the writer as they write. So the writer 'knows' how her daughter will look at her and there are only two ways to 'know' that; one is prejudicially and the other is from experience. Given that, if the mother has the relationship with her daughter to which she alludes, she should have a good idea of what her daughters reaction will be then either she is unfairly ascribing negativity to her daughter or fairly ascribing negativity. Either way it doesn't reflect well on the mother. She is either being unfair now or was unfair in the past. Of course, people being what they are, it is likely to be both. So the mother is pleading "Please don't be intolerant..." and goes on to explain how she taught her daughter how to eat "appropriately", how to get dressed, how to comb her hair and how to deal with life's issues. This is possibly a case where one has to combine what one has learnt from the letter so far to make sense of what is being said at this point. The suggestion that the mother "patiently taught" all these things is in the light of the mother pleading with the daughter not to be intolerant. It seems strange to refer to bringing up a child as "teaching" them how to eat and dress but be that as it may the constant need to justify why the child should treat the mother reasonably is reeking of fear. It does bring to mind the phrase "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

The prejudice is rife in this letter and now the writer says "don’t be nervous, impatient or arrogant". Then a really weird thing happens; the mother says something which may, in some profound sense, be true. The mother says "Just know in your heart that the most important thing for me is to be with you." It begs the question why is the mother having to tell the daughter that?

The bit about a helping hand sounds almost reasonable but I am left wondering why it has to be presented as a deal. Why wouldn't the daughter want to help? Why does she have to be persuaded by the equation 'do it for me because I did it for you'?

The next bit is the only bit in the entire letter that sounded reasonable. Given that this is supposed to be a letter about a loving relationship the mother says "don't be sad". It is the first indication of the mother seeming to care how the daughter feels. The tragic irony is that the mother doesn't go on to say anything about how it has all been worthwhile but rather asks for more 'understanding' from the daughter.

And the last paragraph, if it stood alone, is really nice.

But overall this letter is the most sickly sweet sentimental gluey manipulation I have read in a long time. The serious problem with this letter is that it illustrates that some people cannot tell the difference between loving someone else for who they are and 'needing to be loved'.

Saturday, 28 September 2013

There was a program on the BBC's Radio 4 this morning called iPM which was about child porn on the internet. The blurb said "A man convicted of viewing images of child abuse tells iPM why he wasn't sent to prison, but sent on a course instead. The Policing Minister tells us that all people who view images of child abuse should go to prison". These people - the BBC and the Minister - all sound as if they are being profound and thoughtful but really they are running a perverse agenda. Psychologically speaking one of the effects of abuse is that the abused person has their perception warped. These people are 'conforming' to the cultural and social expectations imposed on them by an abusive culture. Therefore their perception is warped and you can hear it in their pretentious, non-compassionate, prejudicial attitudes. Anyway I was moved to email the program at iPM@bbc.co.uk with the following.

Hello Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey

Saturday morning's iPM was about child pornography on the internet and I was a little horrified listening to Damian Green's moralising. Of course as the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice he is on a bit of a safe bet to express simplistic polarising dictates. (In fact he might be hard put to keep his job if he didn't.) And I entirely agree that the subject is a serious one that needs consideration and debate. But what I can hear beneath his words is a 'not so subtle' passive-aggressive, rather sanctimonious, judgemental prejudice. There is a reason why I find this important enough to communicate and it is because when the Jimmy Savile abuses were finally discovered nearly everyone expressed utter bewilderment at how such an excess could be entirely missed. I think these things are missed because we are, as a culture, sanctifying ourselves with a simplistic moralistic attitude to some prejudicial construct of the 'other' who is wrong.

I know this might be controversial and provocative but I suspect the impetus to interpret the observer as party to the crime is actually the fear of recognising the crime. It is a similar error to that in 'blaming the messenger'. The mistake is to think that if you destroy the messenger you will eradicate the message. In the case of child pornography on the internet it seems too difficult to deal with the perpetrators of abuse and so the viewer is targeted as the easier option. It is, of course, a profound mistake because it promotes cultural blindness. No one is allowed to see the crime and so it becomes the collective illusion of the emperor's new clothes.

I suspect people who agree with the Right Honourable Damian Green imagine that by eradicating the audience they will cause the crime to cease to exist. This is flawed thinking and there appears little or no evidence to suggest this approach has ever had any success historically. Worse than that, the evidence seems to suggest that this approach drives the abuse underground where it escalates. People are understandably anxious about the pain and injustice of child abuse and feel that something should be done about it. Unfortunately it seems that finding someone to blame and punitively incarcerating them reduces the anxiety but does nothing about the crime. This is how people 'feel better' and conclude they must, therefore, be doing something right. But it is very close to how 'blaming the victim' works.

Overall I don't imagine anyone will bother to consider what I have said. It probably seems too hard to comprehend. But this is the conceptual paradigm of the thought police. And much as I genuinely expect Damian Green regards himself as a 'good' person I do worry that he is inadvertently making the situation worse.

In summary it is obviously an injustice to blame the viewer of the crime.

After being amused by the poetic justice I was sad for the young son whose two parents might be incarcerated.

It seems that this 38 year old lady, Elizabeth Laura Lewis, was a well qualified fraud investigator and worked for the Department for Work and Pensions. It was her husband, Mark Scott Lewis, who was found guilty of defrauding HM Revenue and Customs of over three quarters of a million pounds by lying to them by claiming his charity had received donations of £3 million; It was dormant and received virtually nothing.

He had at least 27 companies registered at Companies House and used them to shovel money about attempting to launder it. His wife, Elizabeth, was party to these shenanigans and benefited in many ways including being gifted a whole house! She claimed she had no idea about the fraud she was party to but the jury decided otherwise.

What on earth are we to do with these people? It is happening all over the place and the people surrounding these criminals know perfectly well something is amiss even if they don't know precisely what. It is not just the irony of a benefit fraud investigator being as bent as a nine bob note that is stunning but that it is happening all over the place. It is no surprise that no one could see the abuse being perpetrated by Jimmy Savile when there is so much of it embedded in our culture. It makes me think of the fact that only 10% of the biological material in our bodies is our DNA; The rest is bacteria. I feel that way about our culture sometimes. It is as if 90% of the people are aberrant abusive aliens.

Sunday, 22 September 2013

Conspiracy theories are rife. They are coming out of the genetically engineered ear-hole. But I have another one. A new conspiracy theory. It is not a big one and it is not a world domination one. My theory is a little home town local theory about some members of the Conservative Party. It may be that it links in to a bigger conspiracy and it may turn out that it is all part of the New World Order and the takeover of Global Power. It may be the beginnings of the greatest empire we have ever known but that is something else.

I saw a picture of Chris Grayling and suddenly, like Saul on the road to Damascus, I had an epiphany. I was struck down by a great blinding light (metaphorically you'll understand - I have to add this qualification because the 'literal' and 'metaphorical' have been known to get a bit mixed up in the past - Lazarus for example - or maybe not!). I quickly went to my graphics package and rummaged through hundreds of folders of jpegs and gifs. I found what I was looking for. I found the top half of Chris Grayling's head in one image and the bottom half in another. I pulled them out, resized them and graphically compared them. I was right.

Genetic cross between IDS & Shapps = Grayling

What I discovered was irrefutable evidence of genetic manipulation of the Conservative Party. Now it is only a theory, and a suspicion, that Monsanto is behind this but like all good hunches the odds are it will turn out to be true. What I discovered was Monsanto have genetically extracted certain attributes from the Party Moron, Iain Duncan Smith. It seems his incredibly vacuous skull has been of special interest. They have then taken their flag ship product, the genetically engineered Party Cretin, Grant Shapps, and selected some of his more successful attributes. In his case it appears to be his inane grin which they feel indicates a 'friendly' Party. They have taken these genes, mixed them up a bit and produced a cross with the perverse grin of the Cretin, Shapps, topped by the empty dome of the Moron Smith and produced an entirely new mutant Imbecile which they have named the Chris Grayling (from the genus Thymallus of the Salmonidae family more commonly known as the Grayling).

The terms moron, cretin and imbecile derive from the field of eugenics which is a little out of favour nowadays because of its association with the Nazis. It is unfortunate that this interesting field of study has effectively been curtailed (at least publically) because it seems to have a lot to offer in terms of understanding the Conservative Party and what one can do about them.

There is a lovely castle called Schloss Hartheim in Austria where people were, how can I put this, genetically improved for the betterment of the wealthy sociopaths, oops I mean the health and wellbeing of humanity.

Hartheim Castle in Austria

Some rather unscrupulous people described this beautiful castle for genetic cleansing as a euthanasia centre - fancy that!. It was one location for the "Action T4" project of the Nazis but to be fair they did rid the world of over 18,000 physically and mentally disabled in that one castle alone by gassing them or by lethal injection. Overall the Action T4 project murdered more than a quarter of a million disabled people. Action T4 was the nickname given to the organisation in Germany whose official name translates as the Charitable Foundation for Curative and Institutional Care. How nice these Nazis were, caring, in a curative way, and charitably to boot, for all these poorly people.

I came across a nice poster that the Nazi party produced (NSDAP are the initials of the official name for the Nazi party which in English translates to National Socialist German Workers' Party - cute eh?)

Poster by the Nazi Party circa 1938

This poster (from around 1938) reads: "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read 'New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."

Now it strikes me that the nice Nazis understood only too well how much the scroungers - I mean the sick and disabled - um ... sorry, the defective people cost the tax payers - oops, I mean fellow citizens. Why do I keep slipping into British terminology? Silly me! I didn't mean to associate the Conservatives and their constant degrading references to the sick, disabled and unemployed as fraudsters and scroungers who are costing the decent hard working, tax-paying public literally billions of pounds with the Nazis. I really didn't mean to make such an 'esoteric' connection with the Conservative Party and their rhetoric and the Nazi Party and their rhetoric. That would be so silly and uncharitable of me wouldn't it?

Was it the conservative party that was driving the 'Racist Vans' around London? No my memory must be playing tricks on me. And I don't recall there ever being such a thing as the 'spare bedroom subsidy' prior to the under occupancy penalty, known as the 'Bedroom Tax', being deemed in breach of international human rights by the United Nations. But my memory must be failing me because respectable politicians wouldn't indulge in such deception.

The serious message of this post is that the current language and law making of the Conservatives is quite genuinely transforming and degrading into doublespeak and deception at an alarming rate. This is exactly what happened in the financial crisis in Germany prior to the Second World War. In Britain today there is no financial reason to cut the welfare budget in the way that the Conservatives are doing. It is actually costing them billions more than they are saving but they are producing millions of disenfranchised poor and disabled people so that the next step will be easier and seem more logical and necessary. They are on a mission to reduce the population of this country and to date it is working. They are reacting like thugs at the suggestion by the UN that their policies may be inhumane and are illegally lying about, and hiding, the death toll figures of their policies. It does seem that they are in so much potential trouble that they have no option but to continue the deception. This, in an individual, is described as compulsive behaviour and all the signs are there for the Conservative party. Please be vigilant, don't tolerate the utter nonsense just because it is becoming 'normal' and continue to fight back with everything you can muster.

Friday, 20 September 2013

All of my life I have been bothered by those 'little' things people do which are wholly illegitimate. Those 'little' lies excused as 'white lies'. Those self contradictory statements that you are supposed to allow past your rational filter on the grounds that 'you know what it means'. Well if it is supposed to 'mean' something else why don't they say it. It has taken me a lifetime to even begin to fathom the depths of what is really going on. And I still don't understand well enough to know what to do about it.

I have just read a little story in the Grimsby Telegraph entitled "Firearm threat made to council tax bailiff". It turns out that some bloke went upstairs and got his air rifle in response to the bailiff's implied threat to take his car. It is a difficult to work out quite what happened because the report is a little scant but it seems the bloke (Mr Capes) was not at home and the bailiff was at Mr Capes' house. It seems that they were speaking on the phone and Mr Capes arrived home five minutes later somewhat agitated by the bailiff's suggestion of taking Mr Capes' car. (Incidentally I wonder if an air rifle is actually a 'fire' arm.) What bothered me was that the judge (Judge Peter Clark) said that Mr Capes should have known better than to threaten a man "who was just doing his job".

The reason this bothers me is because it goes straight to the heart of a fundamental problem in our society. One very important concept in any civilised society is 'due process'. Due process seems to be the issue that if the right to action is removed from an individual that the 'authority' is obliged to act lawfully.

The idea that you should not "take the law into your own hands" is only serviceable if the law acts legitimately and with due process. If you are not allowed to defend yourself then the law must. But if the long arm of the law is acting illegitimately then the net result is that the authority is simply an oppressive dictatorship.

It seems that our culture is in serious decline. There are any number of contradictory issues going on and they are more and more in favour of the rich and powerful and against the poor and vulnerable. One example is the way the law was recently changed such that any housing benefit was paid directly to the claimant instead of to the landlord. The next stage was to introduce the 'Bedroom Tax' which means a 14% reduction in housing benefit if the claimant is deemed to have a spare room. (The details of this piece of incompetent legislation are subtle and it is referred to as the "under-occupation penalty" by the government literature. It has recently been re-dubbed as the removal of the "spare room subsidy" which is just a ridiculous manipulation of the language and disgustingly depraved of the government to be playing this cheap linguistic game.) It is IN FACT a tax because the government is removing the money from the claimant's bank account before it gets there. What this arrangement achieves is that the legal issue is now between the landlord and the tenant instead of between the landlord and the government which is where it should lie if the claimant has a right to adequate housing. So the government is not paying the full amount of the rent and leaves the private landlord and the claimant fighting a battle in court. This results in eviction and more serious trouble for someone who simply cannot afford it. Oh and to add insult to injury the right to legal aid has been removed such that many of these claimants cannot get due access to legal protection. It is all Mafioso tactics. There are also the changes to the Department of Work and Pensions and disability payments as well as the unemployment benefits. These changes are being introduced in stages with each stage having some veneer of justification but the irony is that the justification is different for different stages and if it were all put together is blatantly contradictory. It results in unqualified people being employed at very low rates of pay being effectively given impunity to 'sanction' (there's another doublespeak term - people refer to 'sanctioning' the claimant - in fact even the DWP's literature says the claimant can be sanctioned - NO - the sanction is of the otherwise illegitimate behaviour. In other words it is illegal to steal someone's legitimate payment but by way of 'forcing' people to comply with your wishes the illegal act of stopping someone's payment is 'sanctioned'. So it is the illegitimate action that is given sanction and NOT the claimant.) the reduction of a claimants benefit payment. This is the beginnings of a very nasty authoritarian and fascist style oppression and control. The low paid workers in the DWP and Atos are handed the power to destroy other people's lives but their own meagre wages are threatened such that if they don't achieve certain 'targets' they will lose their job. This is how you get people to push others into the gas chamber. And as Philip Zimbardo well understands this social arrangement will cascade out of control. Philip Zimbardo being the professor famous for the Stanford prison experiment. You can watch a very revealing short talk by him entitled "What Makes People Go Wrong?" on another page of ToxicDrums' blog.

The summary of all this is that the government is denying our right to act in our own self defence and then not being duly responsible on our behalf. The net result is that abuse is on the increase and, worse, is increasing at an ever increasing rate. I have more and more frequently encountered cases where government officials, police, councils, even NHS personnel instruct, quite incorrectly, with an assumed authority way above their position. But if you question them you are deemed to be causing trouble and the issue suddenly becomes about the trouble you are causing as if it weren't related to the original cause.

This is what strikes me about the case of Mr Capes. Who is to say he wasn't in arrears because of the illegal behaviour of the government. Even IF there were any legitimacy to the argument that he owed money to the council they simply do not have the legal right to remove his car. But in assuming that whatever they think they can do must be right and even suggesting to Mr Capes that they 'could' remove his car is irresponsible in the extreme and quite illegal. So you have a dishonest thief on your doorstep and you 'frighten' him off with an unloaded air rifle and the judge says he was "just doing his job". No! The judge is 'assuming' he was doing his job but he certainly didn't ascertain if that fact were true. If he was acting outside the legal domain of his job then he was acting illegally as a criminal. he was precisely NOT doing his job.

But in this current oppressive climate can we expect anyone, let alone a self interested judge, to actually examine the facts before passing judgement?

I might be accused of making a mountain out of a mole hill but I can assure the reader there is a significant mountain being made out of mole hills.

Thursday, 12 September 2013

I am shocked by what Mr Grant Shapps had to say about the UN initial report into the bedroom tax.

Grant Shapps [ref] is apparently the Conservative Party chairman. He only has 5 O-levels and his cousin is a punk rocker. His parents are Jewish and the best he could achieve academically was an HND in business and finance. Speaking as one who has more than twice as many O-levels, a couple of A-levels, a B.A. (Hons) and an M.Sc. he seems to me a remarkably unimpressive individual.

Personally I find that description offensive and I wouldn't have written it except as a parody of Mr Shapps' own remarks about a certain well respected United Nations Human Rights Special Rapporteur by the name of Raquel Rolnik.

Mr Grant 'Arrogant' Shapps said of Raquel Rolnik that she was "a woman from Brazil, a country that has 50m people in inadequate housing," he derided her international investigation and report by claiming, quite falsely, that she "has come over, failed to meet with any government ministers, with any officials from the Department of Work and Pensions or even to refer to the policy by its accurate name anywhere in the report at all."

That sounds rather irrational and arrogant. Raquel Rolnik did meet with many government ministers and departments as specifically referenced in her report. She also specifically referred correctly to the "under occupancy penalty" [ref] when she introduced it saying "Especially worrisome in this package is the so-called "bedroom tax", or the spare bedroom under occupancy penalty." So Mr Arrogant is a liar too. Of course, in the House of Commons, etiquette dictates that he is not allowed to be called a liar he is simply mistaken and is misleading people. He possibly doesn't even know the policies "accurate name" hence his rather ignorant claim that Ms Rolnik didn't refer to the policy accurately.

As it happens: "Raquel Rolnik is an architect and urban planner with over 30 years experience in planning and urban land management. She is Professor of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo. At the 7th session of the Human Rights Council she was appointed second United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing." [ref]

But the under qualified minister who goes by the name Grant Shapps, and who hasn't even got a portfolio (hence the double speak 'title' "Minister without Portfolio" - What is that about? I have several special titles including "Not a fireman", "Without beard" and "Lacking in the Lamborghini department"), feels perfectly at ease deriding the highly qualified Raquel Rolnik by slighting her origins by saying she "comes over" (to the UK from Brazil) and claims her country has 50 million people in inadequate housing as if to suggest that disqualifies her from rational observation. I would be interested to know where Mr Shapps got that figure because IF it was ever true I doubt it is current. It appears that in 2010 the figure stood at about 7 million families and it has improved since then. But that aside the horrible Mr Shapps is simply besmirching Ms Rolnik by speculative and prejudicial association. And funnily enough he is casually 'slagging off' Brazil by way of deriding Ms Rolnik. I guess such uncouth devices are to be expected from the under qualified arrogant classes!

Grant Shapps is also acting exactly as might be characteristic of an errant dictator being criticised for breaching International Human Rights. He is making it up as he goes along. He is arrogantly denigrating the United Nations and their personnel. He is trying to personally insult individuals by making seemingly derogatory references to their place of origin. He is claiming things that are blatantly untrue. He is, in fact, wildly denying the truth because he and his party are not only criminals but someone has noticed and is big enough to say so.

And a paragraph I particularly appreciated in Raquel Rolnik's report (to be strictly accurate it is only an initial press release - the full report is due to be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council at its 25th session in March 2014) stated:

"The right to housing is not about a roof anywhere, at any cost, without any social ties. It is not about reshuffling people according to a snapshot of the number of bedrooms at a given night. It is about enabling environments for people to maintain their family and community bonds, their local schools, work places and health services allowing them to exercise all other rights, like education, work, food or health."